remoak
I would define the problem as flight crew pitching up for work with enough alcohol in their system to impair their performance, which the State has defined as 0.010 "whatevers" (I can't recall the unit used).
You are eliding two issues into one. It is a common mistake which I suspect lies at the root of the more extreme and emotive posts which often appear in these alcohol threads.
State?
I don’t know which State you have in mind but, as Carnage Matey has already pointed out, the UK has not defined the alcohol level which impairs performance. It has prescribed, for the purpose of one of our two different offences, a maximum permitted level.
Since the 2003 Act came into force, the UK has had two separate and different offences relating to alcohol in aviation:
(1) Being Unfit for Duty
Performing an 'aviation function' .......... at a time when your ability to perform the function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
That was a change of words, not a change of substance. Those words (taken from the 2003 Act) reflect the offence which had existed in the UK for many years (under the ANO), namely that no member of an aircraft’s crew, LAME or ATC officer shall be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to impair his/her capacity to so act.
However, the 2003 Act also created a second and different offence which did not previously exist in the UK:
(2) Alcohol Exceeding the Prescribed Limit
Performing 'an aviation function' .......... at a time when the proportion of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. (In practice, blood.)
Note that impairment is not an element of this offence.
Accordingly, a pilot whose alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit may still be guilty of this offence regardless of whether or not his ability to perform his aviation function was impaired.
The problem with the research you quote is that it isn't exhaustive.
I didn’t suggest it was exhaustive. As I said, it is the only formal research of which I'm aware. If you can point me to any other research relating to alcohol in aviation I’d be interested to read it.
In your opinion, whether or not excess alcohol actually caused or contributed to an accident is not relevant. I think it is. I'm content to agree to differ.
I disagree that the data is meaningless. IMHO it provides a very helpful and informative indication, although not conclusive.
I can understand why the point I made is inconvenient to your own argument(s), but it’s a pity you’ve resorted to alleging that it is disingenuous. It is not in my nature to make disingenuous points and, even if I was so inclined, I have no reason whatsoever to do so. Unless obvious from the context (and/or a smiley) that I’m not being serious, you can safely assume that, having considered the various issues, I say what I mean and believe what I say.
Is flight safety predicated on the removal of all possible risk etc?
I’m not a flight safety expert but, as I understand it, no, flight safety is not predicated on the removal of all possible risk.
Your Aloha 737 example is not IMHO analogous.
I believe the primary aim flight safety is preventative intervention, not simply reaction to events.
I agree in principle. However, given a set of facts and stats to consider, I suspect we might disagree about the stage at which (if at all) preventative intervention is necessary.
The default view of many agencies and most pilots is one of denial.
I suppose it's possible that “many agencies and most pilots” are wrong and you are right.
"Boozed-Up Britain" is the sort of phrase I expect to read in newspapers of a certain type rather than in intelligent debate, but I agree there is some force in what you say about many Brits’ attitude to drinking. However, the fact is that the safety record of British carriers is and always has been excellent. (I appreciate you’ll probably dismiss that as irrelevant.)
Even assuming for the purpose of this discussion that your claims about pilots’ attitude to drinking are not exaggerated in an attempt to strengthen your arguments, I don’t know if they are based upon recent observations. (I know you used to fly in Europe but don’t know when.)
I mention that because, from what I've been told and read on PPRuNe, whatever may or may not have gone on before, the introduction of the 'excess alcohol' offence has made pilots even more cautious than they already were because they know they are at risk of losing their careers and being sent to prison simply by being over the prescribed limit - even if they are not guilty of the 'Unfit for Duty' offence.
If I don't respond to any other post you may make, please don't assume it's because I agree with what you've said. I've spent (or perhaps wasted) enough time on this topic.
FL
(Edited to correct typos)